XPost: alt.business, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: sac.politics, alt.politics.democrats   
   From: drooler@gmail.com   
      
   Earlier this year, federal and state researchers reported finding a new,   
   potentially dangerous chemical in soil samples from multiple locations in   
   New Jersey. The compound was a form of PFAS, a group of more than 5,000   
   chemicals that have raised concerns in recent years because of their   
   potential link to learning delays in children and cancer, as well as their   
   tendency to last in the environment for a long time.   
      
   But the new revelations, reported in the June issue of Science magazine,   
   stoked concerns among water-quality researchers and advocacy groups for   
   other reasons, too. It underscored how easy it is for manufacturers to   
   phase out their use of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) once the   
   substances have been regulated, and replace them with newer, related   
   compounds that researchers know even less about. And it showed how   
   difficult it is for regulators to track and oversee these new compounds.   
      
      
   Why dangerous ‘forever chemicals’ are allowed in US drinking water   
      
   The authors of the Science report, from the Environmental Protection   
   Agency and the New Jersey department of environmental protection (DEP),   
   identified the West Deptford, New Jersey, plant of a company called Solvay   
   Specialty Polymers USA, a division of the Belgian chemical giant Solvay   
   SA, as the likely source of the contamination.   
      
   Solvay, in a statement to Consumer Reports, denies it is responsible.   
      
   But Solvay has been cited by the New Jersey DEP in the past for   
   contamination of soil and water with an older, now-regulated PFAS   
   compound. And the company has used a replacement PFAS at the facility for   
   years, despite having failed to implement an official way for regulators   
   or independent researchers to analyze whether the new compound is present   
   in the environment, according to documents obtained by Consumer Reports   
   through a public records request.   
      
   Through that request, CR sought documents and communications between   
   Solvay and the agency related to the chemicals identified in the Science   
   study, and received more than 240 pages of filings that highlight the   
   company’s use of a PFAS replacement at its facility.   
      
   The records shed light on the struggle that regulators in New Jersey face   
   in identifying the environmental risks posed at the Solvay plant, as well   
   as the debate between both sides over how to remediate the company’s   
   substitute compound and limit new types of PFAS from being used in the   
   future.   
      
   The New Jersey DEP tells CR it believes Solvay is using “one or more” of   
   the replacement compounds identified in the Science study at the company’s   
   facility. The replacements are “expected to have toxicity” and other   
   properties similar to currently regulated PFAS compounds, the agency says.   
   The DEP declined to answer questions about whether Solvay’s replacement   
   compounds have been detected in public water supplies.   
      
   “The DEP will continue to use the best science available to evaluate   
   emerging contaminants to protect New Jersey’s public health and   
   environment,” the DEP says.   
      
   Environmental and health advocates say that because it takes years to   
   assess the risk of chemicals like Solvay’s new substitute, PFAS should be   
   regulated as a group, with new compounds subject to the same regulations   
   as previously identified ones.   
      
   The American Chemistry Council, an industry group, objects to that idea,   
   saying that each compound is different, so the compounds should be   
   regulated individually.   
      
   Erik Olson, senior strategic director of health and food at the Natural   
   Resources Defense Council, an environmental organization, says that   
   approach is impractical and unnecessary. “We don’t want to continue on   
   this toxic treadmill,” he says, “where one PFAS chemical is phased out   
   only to be replaced by one of literally thousands of others that have   
   similar chemical structures and can reasonably be expected to pose similar   
   environmental and health risks.”   
      
   A fraught history   
   Until 2010, Solvay had used a PFAS compound at its New Jersey   
   manufacturing facility called PFNA (perfluorononanoic acid), which   
   preliminary research indicates may be linked to immune system and liver   
   problems. A year earlier, New Jersey’s DEP detected the contaminant in   
   public water supplies in Paulsboro, a community near the plant. The New   
   Jersey DEP now attributes continued PFNA contamination around the facility   
   to Solvay.   
      
   The company retained a licensed remediation expert to assess that claim,   
   and says it has spent more than $25m in the process. In April, the company   
   told the DEP that it remains committed to investigating and remediating   
   PFNA impacts attributed to the West Deptford facility, according to   
   records obtained by CR.   
      
   But the company steadfastly denies responsibility for all PFNA   
   contamination. In an April 21 letter to the DEP, Solvay alleges the   
   department has maintained a “long-held erroneous belief” that the company   
   is responsible for all PFNA contamination near its facility, and points to   
   what it says are other possible nearby sources, including a former   
   manufacturing site and a fire-training academy that uses firefighting   
   foam, a known source of PFAS.   
      
   “DEP has yet to act on this information, either to investigate and   
   remediate these PFAS discharges itself, or to require the dischargers to   
   do so,” the company says.   
      
   The DEP declined to comment about Solvay’s claim. But the agency has   
   previously said Solvay’s science does not support the conclusion that   
   alternative sources are to blame for PFNA contamination.   
      
   In 2018, New Jersey adopted strict limits on how much PFNA can be present   
   in drinking water. And a year later, the state directed multiple   
   companies, including Solvay, to address PFAS contamination in the state.   
   The state claims in the directive that Solvay knew it was discharging   
   “large amounts” of PFNA into the environment from the facility at least as   
   early as 1991. The company, the state alleges, “knew or should have known   
   of the adverse effects of PFNA exposure” because an industry group of   
   which it is a member had conducted toxicology studies in the 2000s.   
      
   This story is co-published in partnership with Consumer Reports. It is an   
   extract of a longer piece which can be read in full on the Consumer   
   Reports website. Consumer Reports has no financial relationship with any   
   advertiser on this site   
      
   https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/01/new-forever-chemicals-   
   contaminating-environment-regulators-say   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)